Gonna get an 8x10(my entry into LF), which lens...

[thomas_m]

...length has roughly the same field of view as a 50mm in 6*6cm medium format? I guess this is around a 30mm equivalent in 24*36mm?

Also - I shoot urban landscapes mostly, so I won't be doing too much rough hiking. I'm thinking about a Calumet C1 as a first 8x10 for the cheap price and movements. I plan to concentrate my $$ on lens and film as I'm sure I'll have to burn lots at first.

Background - I shoot almost exclusively 6*6cm B&W with a Rollei SL66 and Mamiya 6. No way to integrate an enlarger into my household so I've been scanning. I've rented darkroom time to print trad but it's too big a PITA. I want more bandwidth in my image and think I can deal with contact printing at home. Most importantly, I think the movements will help with all the vertical and horizontals I'm always struggling with in urban landscape shots. I first hought I'd go with a 4x5 but there doesn't seen to be that much benefit over 6*6cm image quality-wise and I'd still be stuck scanning or renting darkroom time. Alternative processes look like great fun too and most seem to require 8x10.

Any information on suitable lenses or camera alternatives is much appreciated. Most of what I know now is due to searches on this forum.

Thanks,

Thomas

 

[jimgalli]

Hi Thomas. The lens you want is the Schneider 240mm G-Claron. It has excellent movements on 8X10 and there's really nothing else close except perhaps a 9 1/2" Dagor which are really hard to find and really expensive. The big f5.6 plasmat 240's don't cover well enough to be useful in my estimation.

 

[John Kasaian]

Thomas,

Welcome to LF!

If I had the bucks I'd get an f/8 165mm Super Angulon. Not a lot of wiggle room but lots more than my 159mm Wolly(at least thats what the specs say) This is one heavy lens(the one I've seen up close and personal would tax the front standards on my old 'dorff!)---it should work fine on a tank like the C-1 if the bellows will permit and the bed dosen't get in the picture--- I have no idea how the C-1 behaves with wide angle lenses so perhaps a C-1 shooter will fill us in. I have read about a guy who uses one (165mm SA) regularly on a 'dorff though, photos are in Steve Simmon's book "Using The View Camera" which I'd recommend. FWIW, wide lenses seem wider on a view camera to me. I find I use them only for more close up subjects---anything in the distance is...well...really, I mean really...uh... distant. Even with my 240 G-Claron and 250 WF Ektar I find that they are less desireable when it comes to the "grand vista" and my lowly 14" Commercial Ektar or 19" RD Artar can encompass just about any large landscape and do it quite nicely. For urban landscapes with LF you might find something longer that the equivalent to the 24mm on a 35 will be the ticket you're looking for. Nikkor I think makes a 210mm "SW" or something like that(I'm just guessing here!) but it would be worth checking out.

8x10 Rocks!

 

[John Kasaian]

What Jim Galli says! The 240 G-Claron certainly do the job for a lot less $$ than a SA or SW!

 

[thomas_m]

Thanks guys. I usually work pretty close, sort of micro-scapes. Often with a normal lens, usually with a 'wide-normal' like the 50/f4 Distagon. Here's an example of a recent shot (w/ a normal Planar) so you can see where I'm headed with this.

T.

 

[Ole]

Instead of the 165 Super Angulon, there's the 165/6.8 Angulon... Barely covers at infinity, but weighs a fraction. My 8x10" (18x24cm, really) kit consists of that and a 240/5.6 Symmar convertible. These are both old, cheap, better than their reputation, lighter than more modern lenses, and they are both in Compur #2 shutters - same size. That shutter size is uncommon and out of production, but they are reliable and should work well for several decades more.

I'm currently looking for a 300mm in the same shutter

 

[John Koehrer]

thomas_m
240 would be= to something around a 50 just a tad bit longer. 165 is less than 40mm on 6X6.

 

[Mongo]

A note on the Calumet C1: It's rear-focusing only, so the bed can't get in the picture because the front standard is always at the front of the camera. But you will have to lean over the back rails to focus a shorter lens. Generally you can do this easily by not raising your tripod as high as you normally would.

 

[jmdavis]

thomas_m
240 would be= to something around a 50 just a tad bit longer. 165 is less than 40mm on 6X6.

Are you sure about that? 300 is nominally the "Normal" for 8x10 just as 50 is the "Normal" for 35 and 90 is the "Normal" for 6x7.

I think that the diagonal for 8x10 is 325mm. So 240 would be on the wide side equivalent to something like 40-45 in 35mm.

 

[Nick Zentena]

Are you sure about that? 300 is nominally the "Normal" for 8x10 just as 50 is the "Normal" for 35 and 90 is the "Normal" for 6x7.

I think that the diagonal for 8x10 is 325mm. So 240 would be on the wide side equivalent to something like 40-45 in 35mm.

The diagonal of 35mm is 43mm. A 50 on 6x6 is basically 180mm. A little more if you use 325mm for the 8x10 sheet. But does anybody make a modern lens that wide for reasonable money?

 

[rbarker]

You may find that your preferred angle of view changes with 8x10, Thomas. At least mine did. On 35mm, 6x6, and 4x5 I tend to shoot normal to somewhat long. On 8x10, my preference shifted to the wide side. If your experience turns out to be similar, the 240mm G-Claron previously siggested would be a good choice as your "normal" lens. For Wide (with a capital W), you might consider the 150mm Super Symmar XL, if the budget allows.

 

[jimgalli]

If you only consider the diagonals he would need a 203mm to equal the ratio of the 50 on 6X6. But in 4:5 I doubt he would have to stick to that to feel as wide as what is needed on a square format. Also most folks are surprised with an 8X10 that you usually back away somewhat from the really wide fields because with depth of focus of the longer lenses you just end up with 5" of asphalt to try to get in focus somehow. Also, the Calumet is a fine old camera and they are bargains for what they go for. A lot of thought and machine work went into them. But they really lend themselves better to long lenses and not so well to short. A modern field design like the Deardorff is sooo much easier and handier with wide field lenses. I'm nearsighted so I like to be inches away from the GG without an 18" bed in my way.

 

[jmdavis]

The diagonal of 35mm is 43mm. A 50 on 6x6 is basically 180mm. A little more if you use 325mm for the 8x10 sheet. But does anybody make a modern lens that wide for reasonable money?

And I used to be so good at Math. Ah well. You are correct.

 

[Troy Ammons]

I know I will probably take some flak for this, but IMO thats too much of a jump for a first step. 4x5 is a lot easier and cheaper to shoot, expecially with quickloads and such.

You may want to do something like what I did and buy a Sinar F1 or F2 4x5 camera. Its basically very modular and everything comes apart in about 20 seconds. They make an 8x10 kit to convert the 4x5 camera and its easy to set up. You can pick up the 8x10 conversion kit for about 1G.

If you go that route just select a WA lens for 8x10 that will work as a portrait lens for 4x5. I got a G-Claron.

 

[Troy Ammons]

Also, I thought that too about the difference between 4x5 and 6x7 especially if its a super sharp 6x7, so i did a test. Mamiya 7 vs 4x5 with a sharp lens same film and there is a significant difference. The big difference for me was that although the M7 carries a lot of detail 4x5 is significantly cleaner. 8x10 would be even better.

Tough decision I guess, but I think 4x5 has a lot of benifits over 6x7. Probably about the same optical, scanning benifits as 8x10 compared to 4x5.

Also the new Epson 4990 will scan 8x10 film.

Well whatever you decide on good luck.

 

[Deckled Edge]

I know I will probably take some flak for this, but IMO thats too much of a jump for a first step. 4x5 is a lot easier and cheaper to shoot, expecially with quickloads and such.

Flak, flak, double FLAK!

I went straight from Hasselblad to an 8x10 'dorff and never looked back.
True, there is a world of difference, and a host of new mistakes to make, but if you want bandwidth, you'll get bandwidth. If you want sharp, you'll get sharp, and if make a good contact print, you may never want to see an enlargement with your name on it again.

It's also true that you will probably want to stand back a little farther with your tripod than you did with the Rollei, so I would not sink big bucks into a lens that you may not use as often as you might think.

Consider the 210 Angulon in a Copal 3. Fairly light, opens to 6.8, and gives lots of movement on the 8x10. If you don't like it, there should be plenty of
folks in e-Bay land who will take it off your hands.

 

[lee]

Flak, flak, double FLAK!

I went straight from Hasselblad to an 8x10 'dorff and never looked back.
True, there is a world of difference, and a host of new mistakes to make, but if you want bandwidth, you'll get bandwidth. If you want sharp, you'll get sharp, and if make a good contact print, you may never want to see an enlargement with your name on it again.

It's also true that you will probably want to stand back a little farther with your tripod than you did with the Rollei, so I would not sink big bucks into a lens that you may not use as often as you might think.

Consider the 210 Angulon in a Copal 3. Fairly light, opens to 6.8, and gives lots of movement on the 8x10. If you don't like it, there should be plenty of
folks in e-Bay land who will take it off your hands.

G-Clarons 210mm will cover 8x10 after f:16 not terribly expensive

lee\c

 

[James Bleifus]

G-Clarons 210mm will cover 8x10 after f:16 not terribly expensive

lee\c

Yup, I just bought one of these from Jim Galli and I'm amazed at how sharp it is. I can count the grains in the sandstone without trying . . .

Cheers,

James

 

[John Kasaian]

Thomas,

If you wanna shoot 8x10, by all means shoot 8x10. Make contacts. Be happy!